• Duress
• Intoxication
• Insanity
• Diminished Capacity
• Infancy
• Cultural
• Rotten Social Background
• Mistake of Fact 
• Mistake of Law

Duress

MPC

Duress is an affirmative defense to unlawful conduct by the defendant if: (1) he was compelled to commit the offense by the use, or threatened use, of unlawful force by the coercer upon his or another person; and (2) a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist the coercion. [MPC § 2.09(1)]  The defense is unavailable if the defendant recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to coercion. If he negligently placed himself in such a situation, however, the defense is available to him for all offenses except those for which negligence suffices to establish culpability. [MPC § 2.09(2)].

The Code’s duress defense is broader than the common law in various respects. First, it abandons the common law requirement that the defendant’s unlawful act be a response to an imminent deadly threat. Second, the defense is one of general applicability, so the defense may be raised in murder prosecutions.

The Code defense is similar to the common law in two significant ways. First, the defense is limited to threats or use of "unlawful" force; therefore, it does not apply to coercion emanating from natural sources.  Second, in conformity with the common law, the Code does not recognize the defense when any interest other than bodily integrity is threatened.

Duress

CL

Voluntary

Intoxication

CL

Voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct; however, in limited circumstances, intoxication may negate the necessary state of mind for a given offense and thus prove exculpatory. Intoxication resulting from alcoholism or drug addiction is considered voluntary under common law principles.

• Mens Rea Defense
• Special Rule For Homicide
• Voluntary Act
• Intoxicated-Induced Insanity

Voluntary

Intoxication 

CL

Mens Rea Defense

– While there are several approaches to evaluating the mens rea portion of criminal activity involving an intoxicated defendant, the most common approach distinguishes between general-intent and specific-intent crimes.  Under this common law approach, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general-intent crimes.  Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes.

Voluntary

Intoxication

CL

Special Rule for Homicide

– Two states, Virginia and Pennsylvania, limit the defense of voluntary intoxication to first- degree murder prosecutions. In states that recognize the defense in allspecific-intent crimes, if the crime of "murder" is divided into degrees, a defendant may generally introduce evidence that his intoxication prevented him from being able to form the requisite state of mind for first-degree murder.

Voluntary

Intoxication

CL

Voluntary Act

– Where a defendant’s intoxication was so severe as to render him unconscious at the time of the commission of the crime, some courts have barred a defense based on unconsciousness if such condition resulted from the voluntary consumption of alcohol or drugs. Others courts allow the defendant to argue that the criminal act was not a voluntary one due to his unconscious state, but only in defense to specific-intent offenses.

Voluntary

Intoxication

CL

Intoxicated-Induced Insanity

The common law does not recognize a defense of temporary insanity based on intoxication where the defendant’s intoxication was voluntary.  Some jurisdictions do recognize a defense based on "fixed" insanity, a condition which results from long-term use of drugs or alcohol

Involuntary

Intoxication

CL

Under common law, a defendant found to have been involuntarily intoxicated may avail himself of the defense of temporary insanity.  Furthermore, one who committed an offense while involuntarily intoxicated can otherwise seek acquittal by asserting the mens rea defense.

Intoxication

MPC

Any form of intoxication is a defense if it negates an element of the crime.

Three Forms

1. Volunary

2. Involuntary

3. Pathelogical

The latter two are insanity defenses

No distinction between "general" and "specific" intent crimes EXCEPT recklessness.

Intoxication

MPC

Mens Rea Defense

Intoxication

MPC

Insanity

Insanity

"Insanity" is a legal term that presupposes a medical illness or defect but is not synonymous with "mental illness," "mental disorder," and "mental disease or defect."  "Mental illness" is a more encompassing term than "insanity," and thus, a person can be mentally ill – medically speaking – without legally being insane.  Five tests of insanity have been applied at one time or another.

Tests used:

M'Naughten Test

"Irresistible Impulse" Test

MPC Test

Product Test

Federal Test

Insanity

M'Naughten Test

The M’Naghten rule focuses exclusively on cognitive disability. Under this rule, a person is insane if, at the time of the criminal act, he was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, that he (1) did not know the nature and quality of the act that he was doing; or (2) if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.

This test requires total cognitive disability and does not allow for degrees of incapacity and nor does it recognize volitional incapacity in which a person is aware that conduct is wrong yet cannot control his behavior.

Insanity

"Irresistible Impulse" Test

Some jurisdictions have broadened the scope of M’Naghten to include mental illnesses that affect volitional capacity.  Generally speaking, a person is insane if, at the time of the offense:

                1.)           he acted from an "irresistible and uncontrollable impulse";

                2.)           he was unable to choose between the right and wrong behavior;

                3.)           his will was destroyed such that his actions were beyond his control.

Insanity

MPC Test

Insanity

Federal Test

[1]  Automatic Commitment – In many states, a person found "not guilty by reason of insanity" [NGRI] is automatically committed to a mental facility on the basis of the verdict. Under automatic-commitment laws, the NGRI-acquittee is not entitled to a hearing to determine whether he continues to suffer from a mental illness, or to determine whether his institutionalization is necessary for his protection or for that of society.

[2]  Discretionary Commitment – In some jurisdictions, commitment of an insanity-acquittee is not automatic.  Typically, however, the trial judge has authority to require a person found NGRI to be detained temporarily in a mental facility for observation and examination, in order to determine whether he should be committed indefinitely.

[1]  Criteria for Release – An insanity-acquittee may be detained as long as she is both mentally ill and dangerous to herself or others. [Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992)].

[2]  Length of Confinement – An insanity-acquittee is committed for as long as necessary until she meets the criteria for release.  She may remain in a mental hospital for a longer period of time than she would have served in a prison had she been convicted of the crime that triggered her commitment. [Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. 354, 370 (1983)]

Insanity

Sexual Predator Laws 

[C]  Sexual Predator Laws – More than fifteen states have enacted highly controversial "sexual predator" statutes which provide for commitment and treatment of sexual violators, defined generally as persons convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffer from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes further sexual predatory acts likely. To invoke the law, a prosecutor typically files a petition in a state court seeking the individual’s involuntary commitment.  If there is probable cause to believe that the person is a sexual predator, the individual is transferred to a mental facility for evaluation, after which a full hearing is held.  If the court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual is a sexually violent predator, he is committed until he deemed safe to be released into the community.

Insanity

NGRI vs. GMNI

NGRI = Not guilty by reason of insanity (Insane at time of offense)

GMNI = Guilty BUT Mentally Ill (Sane at the time of crime, but insane during trial)

GMNI is still sent to prison, but can also go to mental institution to receive treatment.

Diminished Capacity

CL

Diminished Capacity

CL 

Mens Rea Defense

Evidence of mental abnormality is not offered by the defendant to partially or fully excuse his conduct, but rather as evidence to negate an element of the crime charged, almost always the mens rea element.  In such circumstances, diminished capacity thus functions as a failure-of-proof defense.

Scope of Defense – States are divided regarding the extent to which evidence of diminished capacity may be introduced for the purpose of negating the mens rea of an offense. States that follow the Model Penal Code [§ 4.02(1)] permit such evidence, when relevant, to negate the mens rea of any crime. Other states limit the admissibility of such evidence to some or all specific-intent offenses. A third group bars "diminished capacity" evidence in prosecutions of all offenses.  And some jurisdictions bar "diminished capacity" evidence in all prosecutions whether the crime at issue is "specific intent" or "general intent.

A sane person may suffer form a mental disability (e.g., mental illness, mental retardation, Alzheimer’s) that arguably prevents him from forming the metal state required for the commission of an offense.

Diminished Capacity

CL 

Partial Responsibility 

Diminished Capacity

MPC

As a matter of logic, a D should be acquitted of any offense for which he lacked the requisite mens rea, including cases which he lacked the mental state because of a mental disability, whether that disability is permanent or temporary. 

Mistake of Fact

CL

Many states follow the Model Penal Code in requiring proof of mens rea for every element of the offense.  Nevertheless, the common law’s two approaches to mistakes—depending on whether the offense charged is characterized as general-intent or specific-intent—has endured.

If the crime is one of strict liability, a mistake of fact is irrelevant.  Otherwise, the first step in analyzing a mistake-of-fact claim in a jurisdiction that follows common law doctrine is to determine whether the nature of the crime of which the defendant has been charge is specific-intent or general-intent.

Mistake of Fact

CL

General Intent

Ordinary Approach: Reasonableness

Three rules: 

1. Ordinary Approach: Reasonableness

2. Moral Wrong Doctrine

3. Legal Wrong Doctrine

Mistake of Fact

CL

Specific Intent

Mistake of Fact

MPC

[A]  General Rule – Section 2.04(1) provides that a mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense.

[B]  Exception to the Rule – The defense of mistake-of-fact is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense, had the circumstances been as he supposed.  In such cases, contrary to the common law, the Code only permits punishment at the level of the lesser offense. [MPC § 2.04(2)]

Mistake of Law

Under both the common law and Model Penal Code, ignorance of the law excuses no one.  Nevertheless, a number of doctrines apply when a defendant is ignorant or mistaken about the law.

Mistake of Law

Reasonable-Reliance Doctrine

(Entrapment by Estoppel)

Under both the common law and Model Penal Code, a person is excused for committing a criminal offense if he reasonably relies on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense.  

"Official Statement" – For a statement of the law to be "official," it must be contained in:

                1.)           a statute later declared to be invalid;

                2.)           a judicial decision of the highest court in the jurisdiction, later determined to be erroneous; or

                3.)           an official, but erroneous, interpretation of the law, secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation, administration, or enforcement, such as the Attorney General of the state or, in the case of federal law, of the United States.

Even if a person obtains an interpretation of the law from a proper source, that interpretation must come in an "official" manner, not an offhand or informal manner. For example, a person may rely on an official "opinion letter" from the state Attorney General, formally interpreting the statute in question.

Mistake of Law

[1]  Reliance on One’s Own Interpretation of the Law – A person is not excused for committing a crime if he relies on his own erroneous reading of the law, even if a reasonable person – even a reasonable law–trained person – would have similarly misunderstood the law.

[2]  Advice of Prosecutor – Although there is very little case law on the matter, there is some support for the proposition that a person may not reasonably rely on an interpretation of a law provided by a local prosecuting attorney.

[3]  Advice of Private Counsel – Reliance on erroneous advice provided by a private attorney is not a defense to a crime.

Mistake of Law

Fair Notice and the Lambert Principle

CL: Must give "fair notice" to the public

MPC:The Model Penal Code’s fair notice exception [MPC § 2.04(3)(a)] applies where:

   1.)           a defendant does not believe that his conduct is illegal, and

   2.)           the statute defining the offense is not known to him; and was "not published or otherwise reasonably made available" to him before he violated the law.

Mistake of Law

 Ignorance or Mistake that Negates Mens rea

CL

[1]  "Different Law" Approach – A defendant’s lack of knowledge of, or misunderstanding regarding the meaning or application of, another law – usually, it will be a nonpenal law – will negate themens rea element in the definition of the criminal offense.  When a defendant seeks to avoid conviction for a criminal offense by asserting a different-law mistake, on the ground that the different-law mistake negates his mens rea, the first matter for determination is whether the offense charged is one of specific-intent, general-intent, or strict-liability.

[2]  Specific-Intent Offenses – A different-law mistake, whether reasonable or unreasonable, is a defense in the prosecution of a specific-intent offense, if the mistake negates the specific intent in the prosecuted offense.

[3]  General-Intent Offenses – Although there is very little case law on point, a different-law mistake, whether reasonable or unreasonable, apparently is not a defense to a general-intent crime.

[4]  Strict-Liability Offenses – A different-law mistake is never a defense to a strict-liability offense.

Mistake of Law

 Ignorance or Mistake that Negates Mens rea

MPC

 provides that mistake or ignorance of the law is a defense if it negates a material element of the offense.  Application of this defense generally surfaces in cases of a different-law mistake.